Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Seems like a good place to post this tidbit:

“Shortly before [WTC 7] collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein… was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building, since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives.” Shapiro will add: “Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters, and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret.” [Fox News, 4/22/2010]
Click to expand...

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein
 
Well, just consider the facts so far presented, DGM:



  • WTC 7 is the only building in its block to be completely destroyed. The others suffered superficial damage only.

  • At 5:23 pm WTC 7 sinks into its footprint in the exact manner of an imploded building.

  • Silverstein is on record telling a national audience that he told firefighters to "pull it"

  • We hear nine years later that indeed he was on the phone to his insurers asking if he can pull it.

If his insurers had said "sure, Larry, go ahead and pull it", how would they have done this, DGM? How would they have pulled the building on that day?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Well, just consider the facts so far presented, DGM:



  • WTC 7 is the only building in its block to be completely destroyed. The others suffered superficial damage only.

Maybe it blocked the rest of them from being hit? It was also the tallest remaining building.
  • At 5:23 pm WTC 7 sinks into its footprint in the exact manner of an imploded building.

Incorrect. That couldn't be further from the truth. The only similarity is that they were standing, then they weren't. You know this. Why lie? What benefit do you reap from spreading lies on the internet?

  • Silverstein is on record telling a national audience that he told firefighters to "pull it"

Wrong again. He agreed with leadership on the ground that WTC 7 wasn't worth saving. So they let it burn.

  • We hear nine years later that indeed he was on the phone to his insurers asking if he can pull it.

Wrong again. That's either a totally fabricated lie ( most likely ) or a total misrepresentation of the conversation. The alternative is that they planned and executed the "controlled demo" during the day on September 11, 2001. That is impossible and you know it.
If his insurers had said "sure, Larry, go ahead and pull it", how would they have done this, DGM? How would they have pulled the building on that day?
Click to expand...

Your retarded claim. It's up to YOU to explain that.
 
What is it with you truthers pulling these insane theories out of your rear end, then asking others to prove them?

What planet do you live on?
 
ergo said:
Well, just consider the facts so far presented, DGM:



  • WTC 7 is the only building in its block to be completely destroyed. The others suffered superficial damage only.

  • At 5:23 pm WTC 7 sinks into its footprint in the exact manner of an imploded building.

  • Silverstein is on record telling a national audience that he told firefighters to "pull it"

  • We hear nine years later that indeed he was on the phone to his insurers asking if he can pull it.

If his insurers had said "sure, Larry, go ahead and pull it", how would they have done this, DGM? How would they have pulled the building on that day?
Click to expand...
The funniest thing is that you believe this story. Yeah, a Con-Edison worker and a cop would know what Silverstein was doing. Got a direct quote on that? Hey, my ex-wife's, second cousin thinks you did it.

Quite the skeptic you are.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm assuming you mean this question



I'm not sure how he could answer this question in this context. You offer no limiting conditions. If in the context of 9/11, there was no certainty of collapse.

Given the wording, I could honestly answer, yes.

If it was a different question, I apologize.

ETA: This version of the question is not much better



The answer to this question is obvious. How does it advance the argument?

The focus here is the wording Silverstein used. He would not be consulted about the condition or necessary procedures by any of the members of the FD. How does this question pertain to the subject from Silverstein s perspective?
Click to expand...



Red knows why I am asking.

Its because he claims that there was no reason to "pull" the firefighters away because no one was "in" WTC7.

Therefore he must believe that if a building collapses you're not in any danger so long as you are not inside it. The question seems obvious, if a building is in danger of collapse you're probably not going to feel safe just because you're not in the building. So there was reason to pull people away from it, but him admitting that means debunking his own argument about firefighters on 911.
 
Last edited:
Ergo:
You want to know something that's really funny?

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...ruthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/#ixzz1ncli2HDU
Click to expand...

Your source for this "tid-bit". Really sucks at facts (bold).

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Well, just consider the facts so far presented, DGM:



  • WTC 7 is the only building in its block to be completely destroyed. The others suffered superficial damage only.

  • At 5:23 pm WTC 7 sinks into its footprint in the exact manner of an imploded building.

  • Silverstein is on record telling a national audience that he told firefighters to "pull it"

  • We hear nine years later that indeed he was on the phone to his insurers asking if he can pull it.

If his insurers had said "sure, Larry, go ahead and pull it", how would they have done this, DGM? How would they have pulled the building on that day?
Click to expand...


Way to go ignoring everyone on the subject. We have already replied to all that in many different ways, you just fail to respond to any of it. You dont win an argument by ignoring everyone and then restating your claims as if they didnt say anything
 
DGM said:
Ergo:
You want to know something that's really funny?
Click to expand...

That's hiLARious, DGM! Where is that floor-slapping tiger gif when you need it?

He must have got ALL his facts wrong, then! Right? And FOX news NEVER bothered to correct it! Nor did Silverstein ever demand a correction! Nor have any of the other NYPD officers, Con-Edison workers, firefighters or other journalists he mentions attempted to correct this obvious false claim in the two years since it appeared in FOX news! Wow!

Why don't you write to FOX and let them know?
 
Edx said:
Way to go ignoring everyone on the subject. We have already replied to all that in many different ways, you just fail to respond to any of it. You dont win an argument by ignoring everyone and then restating your claims as if they didnt say anything
Click to expand...

The problem is, your attempts to explain each point have to use separate hypotheses that don't fit well together and that are, furthermore, all reliant entirely on guesses and assumptions.

Your arguments are not credible in face of the facts.
 
Last edited:
You know, when you ask the question "Did Silverstein intentionally demolish WTC 7?" and then are presented with the facts listed above, why is it that bedunkers refuse to use Occam's Razor?

Their only counter-argument is incredulity.
 
ergo said:
Well, just consider the facts so far presented, DGM:



  • WTC 7 is the only building in its block to be completely destroyed. The others suffered superficial damage only.
Click to expand...

Like the superficial damage to Fiterman Hall? OK fair enough, that building did have to be p dismantled later

  • At 5:23 pm WTC 7 sinks into its footprint in the exact manner of an imploded building.
Click to expand...

Not the exact manner, no, at least for those of us who can hear the difference between the presence of explosive charges and the absence of a wind screen

  • Silverstein is on record telling a national audience that he told firefighters to "pull it"
Click to expand...

His recorded recollection is that he suggested the firefighters should "pull it" and they made that decision

  • We hear nine years later that indeed he was on the phone to his insurers asking if he can pull it.
Click to expand...

Is it your contention that Larry always wanted to be a fireman? Seriously, the intellectual dishonesty it takes to draw a line between 3 and 4 as your ah-ha! moment is just stunning. Actually I think stultifying is the better word.

If his insurers had said "sure, Larry, go ahead and pull it", how would they have done this, DGM? How would they have pulled the building on that day?
Click to expand...

To play your game just momentarily--who cares? Just assuming that the fire had gone out at 5PM and the building didn't still subsequently collapse on its own (a stretch to all but you), do you think he would have aired the thing out, slap in some new drywall and a coat of paint, good as new? This is a serious question. WTC 7 still stands on 9/12...what does Larry do with it then? Do you really have to believe the 9/11 conspiracy so badly that arranging for the demolition of what was then a towering burnt-out hulk is in and of itself suspicious?
 
ergo said:
You know, when you ask the question "Did Silverstein intentionally demolish WTC 7?" and then are presented with the facts listed above, why is it that bedunkers refuse to use Occam's Razor?

Their only counter-argument is incredulity.
Click to expand...

LOL

You're using "simplest explanation" as a fall-back?

Lets see what you think is the simplest explanation:

- Larry Silverstein sees an opportunity to demo WTC 7, presumably to make a bit of cash.

- He phones the insurance company to see what his options were.

Lets keep in mind that 2 aircraft just slammed into adjacent buildings, which are now in the process of collapsing in the worst terrorist attack ever

- Lo and behold, the OK is given for controlled demolition.

Shortly before [WTC 7] collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein… was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building, since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives.” Shapiro will add: “Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters, and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret.” [Fox News, 4/22/2010]
Click to expand...

That is the scenario presented by you in the above quoted text, ergo. Not us.

- Larry Silverstein contacts a controlled demo company, who, apparently not busy that day, conconts a plan to demo a building nearly twice the size of the previous world record. On the spot.

- Convieniently, this demo company must be headquartered in NYC, or someplace pretty damn close to it.

- They arrive in time to load a 47 story building with no prior preparation with explosives that do not make a ton of noise and result in collapse several minutes to hours later.

- The above happens in full view of the NYPD, PAPD, NYFD, FBI and thousands of workers and witnesses who think nothing of it.


Now, I'm sure I missed something along the way, but all of the above are REQUIRED in order for your 'theory' (lol) to be true. If there are any points that I've laid out that are in error, please tell me exactly which one it is, and, being specific, tell me how I'm wrong.

All of that, in your opinion, is simpler than "Building struck by another building, causing fires that are unfought for 7 hours, resulting in collapse"
 
ergo said:
Seems like a good place to post this tidbit:



http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_silverstein
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
That's kinda funny. The article that history commons quotes is from an article titled "Shame On Jesse Ventura!"


What a quote mine and a half you found, Ergo! Good job my friend. Best case ever of taking something way out of context. Let's read it in its entirety shall we?
Let's start with THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
Click to expand...

Awesome source! :rolleyes:

From the same article:
As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom